A
atheistgirl
Guest
Ok.
Why were they not fallible? Because of the direction of the Holy Ghost?
Sarah x
- Status
Why were they not fallible? Because of the direction of the Holy Ghost?
Sarah x
P
Porknpie
Guest
MatthewMark -
Bible-truth website is anti catholic and distorts the Catholic teaching.
Here’s two links that will explain the deutercanonicals :
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Xian,
Can you briefly let me know what caused you to change a belief. Beliefs are hard to change. Help me understand what it was that caused you to say that your are now convinced. You convinced yourself because no one can change the way another believes. How did you do that?
J
joe370
Guest
I believe that all Christians can be guided by the holy spirit of course, but I am talking about God ensuring that His doctrinal truth e.g., the Eucharist or Baptism, both of which have 2 different interpretations, are properly preserved. Is it the church leaders, regardless of church affiliation, via the guidance of the holy spirit or the individual Christian via the guidance of the holy spirit? Or, is there no way to know, with certainty, who is right about the 2 different interpretations regarding those 2 teachings?
I know who to obey in the CC. What I do not know is who to obey within protestantism? As a former protestant, I was told that I can read my bible and determine truth regarding the teachings found therein, all the while, being taught, error-free doctrine mind you, from the pulpit, by my Pastors.
I will provide an answer. Well, if the CC errs in doctrine, then I suppose we would assume that God failed to preserve revealed doctrinal truth (not all things have been revealed such as many things found in the book of revelations) within the church He founded.
Unrighteous behavior e.g. scandals, accept them for Jesus predicted that those things were unavoidable. After all, Satan wants, more than anything, to destroy Jesus’ Mystical Body the Church aka followers of Jesus. Revelation 12:
*Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring —those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus. *
It seems reasonable and biblical to obey God via His Church, for the simple fact that God is no longer here. It’s either that or, obey God via one’s understanding of His word which has done such damage to the oneness and unity of His Mystical Body, doctrinally speaking. Sola scriptura gives each Christian carte blanche to decide who is doctrinally wrong (the catholic church) and who is doctrinally right. That’s not biblical at all.
The church…
Can you identify the corrupt and misguided…? If so then why should I trust that you are right?
Absolutely!!! God wants us to defer to Him via His church; not because we are to trust fallible people, but rather that we are to trust His perpetual guidance of His church.
I sure wished they viewed us catholics as brothers (people I have met in my life, not you). Protestantism is one when it comes to believing that Jesus is our Savior. If you see unity within the protestant sphere, that’s cool. I did not see it as a former protestant.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Some see Sunday as the only holy day of obligation while others prefer to go every day. I am, as always, referring to biblical doctrines such as the Eucharist and Baptism, both of which are essential for salvation, depending on church affiliation, and both camps cannot be right.
Paul’s solution (and this was a man who wrote most of the NT) was to defer to the church in Jerusalem:
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.*
Why not just defer to scripture* right there in Antioch*?
*
Protestants do not believe that God continues to do this - correct?
Who within Christendom, has the God-given, spirit-guided authority to say: hey man that is doctrinally wrong? Please be specific…
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Do the Orthodox?
They don’t hold with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for example?
They have Apostolic succession and full and valid sacraments, so I guess they must have some authority too?
Sarah x
J
joe370
Guest
Ok.
Why were they not fallible? Because of the direction of the Holy Ghost?
Sarah x
:yup: That’s the faith in the CC…
A
atheistgirl
Guest
So it comes down basically to believing these men could not have been in error, because they are part of the Catholic Church, bolstered by the *believe *that the Catholic Church was founded by and on Christ, and hence would never be in error?
Sarah x
J
joe370
Guest
Regarding the reveled teachings of Jesus (not all things have been revealed e.g., many things in the book of Revelation) via His Church? Yes, that is the faith…Of course I do understand that this can be a hard pill to swallow, but for me, atheism is an even bigger pill to swallow. I suppose I was never really an atheist, long ago, but rather an agnostic.So it comes down basically to believing these men could not have been in error, because they are part of the Catholic Church, bolstered by the *believe *that the Catholic Church was founded by and on Christ, and hence would never be in error?
Sarah x
J
joe370
Guest
The Orthodox churches make similar claims, but not with the same certainty and clarity, and that, among other things, really bothered me when considering Orthodoxy.
Yes, they absolutely believe that Mary was sin free her entire life; they just refuse to adopt the word, Immaculate Conception. Semantics really…
Absolutely.Sarah x
It would be so cool to see the east and west re-unite…
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I think it goes a bit deeper than semantics. They do indeed hold Mary was free of personal sin her entire life, but they do not hold she was born exempt from original sin. One argument I’ve heard is if that was the case she wouldn’t be human, and thus not able to transmit her humanity to Jesus. Their understanding of original sin, and it’s effect is somewhat different also.
Sarah x
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Sarah, you are right. :thumbsup:I completely forgot about that, and that was just one of about five reasons why I chose the CC instead of the EOC. Original sin is quite scriptural in my humble opinion. Thanks for reminding me…Sarah x
P
Porknpie
Guest
Sarah, you may already know the Catholic understanding of Mary but for any lurkers, Mary born “full of grace” is understood that Gods grace filled her completely, she had no room for sin in her.I think it goes a bit deeper than semantics. They do indeed hold Mary was free of personal sin her entire life, but they do not hold she was born exempt from original sin. One argument I’ve heard is if that was the case she wouldn’t be human, and thus not able to transmit her humanity to Jesus. Their understanding of original sin, and it’s effect is somewhat different also.
Sarah x
“Blessed are thou among woman” is understood to mean that Mary is the greatest of women, including Eve. Eve was sinless but fell into sin. Mary was sinless, but never sinned.
Pork n
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Hi Porknpie,Sarah, you may already know the Catholic understanding of Mary but for any lurkers, Mary born “full of grace” is understood that Gods grace filled her completely, she had no room for sin in her.
“Blessed are thou among woman” is understood to mean that Mary is the greatest of women, including Eve. Eve was sinless but fell into sin. Mary was sinless, but never sinned.
Pork n
Yes, I understand that to be the case.
I find it very interesting that two groups, both successors to the Apostles, both of whose Churches are founded on Christ, both of who have valid orders and sacraments, both of who are guided by the Holy Spirit, can come to such different conclusions over certain issues, and claim each other is wrong.
To an outsider like me looking in, it does make me seriously question the veracity of any claims made by any Church when two such Churches, with a common founder, namely God Himself in the form of Jesus, can differ so profoundly.
Sarah x
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Hi Sarah. Im puzzled by this. You mean any claims? Jesus as Son of God and not a created being? Mary as an intercessor and Mother of God? The Trinity? THESE are unmistakeably profound.Hi Porknpie,
To an outsider like me looking in, it does make me seriously question the veracity of any claims made by any Church when two such Churches, with a common founder, namely God Himself in the form of Jesus, can differ so profoundly.
Sarah x
MJ
P
Porknpie
Guest
Sarah,Hi Porknpie,
Yes, I understand that to be the case.
I find it very interesting that two groups, both successors to the Apostles, both of whose Churches are founded on Christ, both of who have valid orders and sacraments, both of who are guided by the Holy Spirit, can come to such different conclusions over certain issues, and claim each other is wrong.
To an outsider like me looking in, it does make me seriously question the veracity of any claims made by any Church when two such Churches, with a common founder, namely God Himself in the form of Jesus, can differ so profoundly.
Sarah x
In a sense, you are looking at the glass partially empty rather than it being almost full. There is much that we hold in common. From where you are coming from as an aethiest, I would state that the commonality is the elephant, the differences are the ants. To focus on the ants, and to lose sight or not to understand that the elephant is in the room overshadowing the ants, is to not have the proper perspective. IMHO.
One could reflect on the nicene creed to get a sense of this.
“Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works.”
—the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198
Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed:
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Pork n
P
Porknpie
Guest
Here’s replying to my own post. Patrick Madrid talked about the eastern rite churches in the opening of his radio program last week. A good book recommended by him is Rome and the Eastern Churches by Aidan Nichols. The second edition of this book came out in 2010. Nichols is a Dominican theologian.
Patrick Madrid’s “Open Line” radio program can be downloaded as a podcast here.
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6725&T1=Open+Line
S
stewstew03
Guest
Yes, as Catholics we believe that the Church as the authority to teach and safeguard Christian doctrine. But I think your suspicions are headed in the right direction. The reason I brought up “infallibility” is to point out the hypocrisy by some protestant groups, in this case James White, who like to harangue the Catholic Church for claiming infallible authority.So it comes down basically to believing these men could not have been in error, because they are part of the Catholic Church, bolstered by the *believe *that the Catholic Church was founded by and on Christ, and hence would never be in error?
Sarah x
So, if James White were here, you might be asking him the same questions regarding the Holy Spirit, and authority and the Catholic Church. If James White can claim that the HS led him to decipher which books belong, why does he deny the same function vis-a-vis the Church?
J
joe370
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
I think the individual bishops understood their authority. When, for example, Athanasius issues the Festal Letter, that letter is for his jurisdiction, or diocese, and he recommends it for reading. He does not try to impose it on the whole Church.I understand that it took some time to reach agreement, and there would have been a lot of discussion and prayer I’m sure. It appears the Holy Spirit didn’t instantly inspire the Bishops, in union, to know which books should be included, therefor the need for the various Councils to discuss, agree and confirm.
I’m sure these Bishops felt individually guided by the Holy Spirit, and were certainly praying for this guidance, so what’s the difference between, say, one of these individual Bishops, and Mr. White?
Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit, or claim to be. It seems to me the only difference is one is working on their own, in prayer, and the other is working, in prayer, in conjunction with many others.
Sarah x
I think the difference between those indivudual bishops and Mr. White is…(cite a quote…and you can read it in its entirety here…calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/)…that they denied any personal authority to define doctrine.They deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity.
- Status